alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Command
Systems Inc., and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      21,401,397                 391,687
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,017,205               4,462,134
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (74,995)               (259,893)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               300,662                 406,974
<PP&E>                                       3,131,983               2,859,730
<DEPRECIATION>                               (995,822)               (825,562)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,050,208              14,425,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,113,587               4,924,026
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0              10,223,475
<COMMON>                                        34,818                   1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,901,803               (723,414)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,050,208              14,425,087
<SALES>                                      7,933,745               5,144,033
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,933,745               5,144,033
<CGS>                                        5,110,131               3,845,811
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,110,131               3,845,811
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,271,372               1,474,474
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              42,740                  43,941
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                558,721               (214,054)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   104,281                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            454,440               (214,054)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   454,440               (270,928)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04                   (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04                   (.06)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2017070EN.01001002.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 15 December 2016 — Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL v Demeures terre et tradition SARL

(Case C-645/16)

(2017/C 070/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Conseils et mise en relations (CMR) SARL

Applicant:

Defendant: Demeures terre et tradition SARL

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Does Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (1) apply where termination of the commercial agency contract occurs during the trial period provided for in that contract?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17.

1

---
No. 58952.

protest 240285-K (New York).

#### Bleyle Importing Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

An examination of the papers disclosing that the protest does not set forth distinctly and specifically the reasons for the objection to the decision made by the collector, as required by section 514, and showing nothing to overcome the presumption of correctness of the action of the collector, the protest was overruled.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

 Although the order granting defendant’s last request for an extension of time to file his

dispositive motion required defendant to file it by October 16, 2005, the court, on this occasion

only, will overlook defendant’s having filed the motion one day beyond the deadline and allow

him to proceed. However, any future tardiness on the part of defendant will not be permitted. 

2

 Should plaintiff seek an extension of time to file his response to defendant’s motion, his

request must be timely and show good cause.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTIAGO SOTO,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0571 FCD GGH P

vs.

WARDEN D.L. RUNNELS, 

Defendant. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to file and serve his pretrial statement 

pursuant to the court’s order of March 24, 2005. On the same day plaintiff filed his request,

defendant’s motion for summary judgment was filed.1 Therefore, the court will vacate the dates

for the pretrial hearing and for the trial set forth in the court’s scheduling order. Plaintiff is

reminded that, by order filed on August 26, 2004, he was advised of the requirements for filing

an opposition to a motion for summary judgment under the Local Rules.2

\\\\\

Case 2:04-cv-00571-FCD-GGH Document 39 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The dates set in the March 24, 2005 scheduling order, for the pretrial hearing,

November 4, 2005, and for the trial, January 10, 2006, are hereby vacated, in light of defendant’s

motion for summary judgment, filed on October 17, 2005;

2. Plaintiff’s October 17, 2005 request for an extension of to file a pretrial

statement is denied as moot;

3. Plaintiff’s opposition, or statement of non-opposition, to defendant’s motion

for summary judgment is due within 30 days of the date of this order;

4. The date for a pretrial hearing, including the deadlines for the parties to file

their pretrial statements, as well as a date for trial will be re-set upon adjudication of defendant’s

pending motion, if appropriate. 

DATED: 10/24/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009/bb

soto0571.36

Case 2:04-cv-00571-FCD-GGH Document 39 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2
#### Irving PEELE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLINAS DE CAPISTRANO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-56126.

D.C. No. CV-99-00696-AHS.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted June 11, 2001.*

Decided June 25, 2001.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant's request is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Irving Peele appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, *see W. Coast Theater Corp. v. City of Portland,*897 F.2d 1519, 1523 (9th Cir.1990), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for failure to prosecute because the district court considered all relevant factors and provided Peele warning that it was considering dismissal of his action. *See id.*

*587Peele’s contention that the district court abused its discretion by failing to extend the time for service is without merit because absent good cause, the district court is not required to extend the time for service. *See De Tie v. Orange County,*152 F.3d 1109, 1111 n. 5 (9th Cir.1998).

The district court properly considered the strength of Peele’s case before dismissing the action. *See McHenry v. Ren-ne,*84 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.1996).

Peele’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 221 

1 

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION I 

No. E-14-718

RENEE ABBOTT

APPELLANT

V.

DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 

WORKFORCE SERVICES, and JB 

HUNT TRANSPORT, INC.

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered April 8, 2015

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS 

BOARD OF REVIEW

[NO. 2014-BR-01920]

REMANDED

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

 Renee Abbott appeals the Arkansas Board of Review decision to deny her 

unemployment benefits. The issue is whether Ms. Abbott engaged in misconduct when 

she allegedly failed to text-message, or otherwise notify her employer, that she would not 

be in to work; however, we are not able to address the issue on the merits at this time 

because of a question of the record’s accuracy is presented for our review. The case is 

remanded with the instruction that the record be clarified and, if necessary, corrected. 

After a thorough review of the record, it appears that there is a discrepancy that 

cannot be overlooked. Specifically, the copy of policies and procedures provided by JB 

Hunt appear to be for a company named “Vons.” The record offers no explanation for 

the inclusion of the policy manual for “Vons” and not JB Hunt. 
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 221 

2

Deficiencies in the record on appeal must be addressed if they hinder our review of 

the merits. In the event of a material omission or misstatement, we may sua sponte direct 

the record to be settled. Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 6(e); see also Heard v. Regions Bank, 369 

Ark. 274, 276–77, 253 S.W.3d 422, 424 (2007) (per curiam). We therefore remand to the 

Board of Review with instructions to ascertain if a mistake has been made and, if so, to 

provide notice to the parties and correct the record accordingly. 

Remanded. 

HARRISON and HIXSON, JJ., agree. 

Renee Abbott, pro se appellant. 

Phyllis Edwards, Associate General Counsel, for appellee.
1

Section 3505(a)(2) of the PRA of 1995 provides the OMB Director authority to approve the streamlined clearance process proposed in this information collection plan. This information collection plan was originally approved by

OMB in January

of 1997. I t str eamlines the clearance process for all discretionary grant information collections which do not fit the generic application process. The streamlined clearance process continues to reduce the clearance time for the U.S. Department of Education's (ED's) disc retionary grant information collections (that fit the 189 4

- 0001 process) by

two months or 60day s. This is desirable for two major reasons: it would allow ED to provide better customer service to grant applicants and help meet ED’s goal for timely awards of discretionary

grants. This document serves as the instrument placeholder.

mproved Customer Service The time saved by

a streamlined clearance process means an earlier approval of ED's discretionary

grant application packages and "on the street" to the w aiting public much sooner than through the current process. This translated into better customer service to our applicants because of the increased time to complete applications, which ranked high on their list of priorities. In addition, the streamlined clearance process continues to allow ED program staff to devote more time to the actual administration of grants, instead of having to wait for the completion of the lengthier clearance process.

upporting ED's Goal Time saved in this component assists E D in meeting its goal of awarding all discretionary grants on a timely

basis. To meet this goal for each fiscal y ear, ED will award most of its new grants by May

.
Therefore, ED propose s that the clearance process for discretionary grant information collec tions continues to be streamlined in the following manner: the clearance process begins when ED submits the collection to OMB and, simultaneously , publishes a 30

- day public comment period notice in the Federal Register. OMB would still have 60 day s, follow ing the beginning of the public comment period, to reach a decision on the collection.

Under this streamlined clearance process, OMB has 60 day s to review each collection and the public would still have an opportunity to comment on each collection once in stead of twice. As we have learned, one public comment period is sufficient; especially , when it means saving 60 day s per clearance. This continues to help ED provide better customer service to grant applicants and award all discretionary grants on a timel y basis. 

# I

S
# C_2018142EN.01004602.xml

| 23.4.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 142/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.4.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 February 2018 —Paulini v ECB

(Case T-764/16) (1)

1

((Civil service - ECB staff - Remuneration - Annual salary and bonus review - Lawfulness of the guidelines - Calculation method - Taking into account of sickness leave - Taking into account of activities of a staff representative - Principle of non-discrimination))

(2018/C 142/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Jörn Paulini (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented initially by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, subsequently by: L. Levi and A. Tymen and finally by: L. Levi, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented by: F. von Lindeiner and D. Camilleri Podestà, acting as Agents, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action on the basis of Article 270 TFEU seeking, firstly, the annulment of the decision of the ECB, sent to the applicant on 15 December 2015 and amended on 10 February 2016, concerning the 2015 annual salary and bonus review and, secondly, compensation for the loss which the applicant allegedly suffered as a result of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Jörn Paulini to bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Jörn Paulini to bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Central Bank.

---

(1)  OJ C 14, 16.1.2017.

1

---
Before the Second Division,

October 31, 1960

No. 64823.

#### Steinberg Bros. *v.*United States,

protest 236314-K (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of nylon fabrics similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Steinberg Bros.*(47 C.C.P.A. 47, C.A.D. 727), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
77 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 

Note 3. Accounts and Taxes Receivable, Net

Accounts and Taxes Receivable as of September 30, 2017, and 2016

Restated

(In billions of dollars) 2017 2016

Accounts receivable:

Gross accounts receivable.......................................................................... 117.9 110.9

Allowance for uncollectible amounts ............................................................ (29.8) (30.1)

Accounts receivable, net............................................................................. 88.1 80.8

Taxes receivable:

Gross taxes receivable ............................................................................... 203.8 184.7

Allowance for uncollectible amounts ............................................................ (148.6) (132.3)

Taxes receivable, net.................................................................................. 55.2 52.4

Total accounts and taxes receivable, net ................................................... 143.3 133.2

Gross accounts receivable include related interest receivable of $3.4 billion and $3.5 billion as of September 30, 2017, 

and 2016, respectively.

Treasury comprises approximately 37.3 percent of the Government’s reported accounts and taxes receivable, net, as of 

September 30, 2017. The following list of agencies comprise 97.3 percent of the Government’s accounts and taxes 

receivable, net, of $143.3 billion as of September 30, 2017. Please refer to the following financial statements for details on 

gross accounts and taxes receivable and the related allowance for uncollectible amounts:

• Treasury

• HHS

• SSA

• Department of the Interior (DOI)

• DHS

• DOD

• PBGC

• DOE

• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

• VA

• OPM 

• Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

• DOL

• Department of Agriculture (USDA)

• United States Postal Service (USPS)

• HUD

Accounts and taxes receivable, net have historically included amounts related to criminal restitution owed to the 

government. Beginning in fiscal year 2017, additional information is disclosed related to these amounts for the current fiscal 

year. Included in accounts and taxes receivable, net is $8.8 billion of gross receivables related to criminal restitution orders 

monitored by the responsible agencies, of which $0.6 billion is determined to be collectible. Of this gross receivable amount, 

Treasury, HHS, and SSA collectively account for $8.0 billion of which $0.5 billion is determined to be collectible as of 

September 30, 2017. 

Certain PBGC amounts have been restated. Refer to Note 1.V— Restatements for more information.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A19A0465. EDWARD EARL BOWEN et al. v. PARISA, LLC.

This case began as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. Following

an adverse ruling, one or more defendants appealed to the superior court, which

dismissed the appeal. Defendant EdwardBowen then appealed directly to thisCourt.

1

We lack jurisdiction.

Appeals from superior court decisions reviewing lower court decisions by

certiorari or de novo proceedings must be initiated by filing an application for

discretionary appeal. OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), (b); Bullock v. Sand, 260 Ga. App. 874,

875 (581 SE2d 333) (2003). “Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure

is jurisdictional.” Smoak v. Dept. of Human Resources, 221 Ga. App. 257, 257 (471

SE2d 60) (1996). Bowen’s failure to follow the proper procedure deprives us of

jurisdiction over this appeal, which is hereby DISMISSED. See Bullock, 260 Ga.

App. at 875.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

1 Bowen, a non-lawyer, is the only defendant who signed the notice of appeal. 

He thus is the sole appellant because, as a non-attorney, he may not file an appeal on

behalf of any other parties. See Aniebue v. Jaguar Credit Corp., 308 Ga. App. 1, 1,

n. 1 (708 SE2d 4) (2011).

October 17, 2018

10/17/2018
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<CIK>                                                 0001051904
<NAME>                                 Frisby Technologies, Inc.
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                 4,305,617
<SECURITIES>                                           1,548,359
<RECEIVABLES>                                          1,102,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                             (80,000)
<INVENTORY>                                              661,295
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       7,960,096
<PP&E>                                                   625,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                          (120,074)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        10,794,792
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  1,005,285
<BONDS>                                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                          0
<PREFERRED>                                            2,479,000
<COMMON>                                                   5,121
<OTHER-SE>                                             5,818,885
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          10,794,792
<SALES>                                                  830,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,026,826
<CGS>                                                    657,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            845,592
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       1,663,956
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       (75,222)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                       (1,407,493)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                   (1,407,493)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                0
<CHANGES>                                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                                   0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                              (0.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (0.27)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Brian R. Ervine, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/  BRIAN R. ERVINE                                                     |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Brian  R. Ervine                                                         |   |
| Executive  Vice President and Chief Financial and Administrative Officer |   |
| November 4,  2010                                                   |   |

 

 

This certification is furnished with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Suchcertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----